posted on August 4, 2000 01:07:59 AM new
As far as I'm concerned, the fight is more of an issue of protecting freedoms, pornography just happens to be the subject we are discussing.
You probably don't remember this person, (too young), but I think Phyllis Schafley (sp) degraded and debased women more than anyone I recall. However, I would not take away her right to say what she did as that would have been taking away her freedom of speech.
You see the acceptance of pornography by society as being degrading to women. Many agree with you, even I do to some extent. This may sound far-fetched to you, but suppose that I felt home schooling was immoral and was harming our children (I know of some circumstances in which this is true in my own family).
Do I have the right to take away your freedom to home school your children? Of course, I can petition, discuss, rabble rouse, etc., but you still have the freedom to home school your children until the Courts say otherwise.
Those who produce and sell pornography have the freedom to do so as well until the Courts say otherwise.
If the Courts ever say otherwise, what freedoms will we lose next? I, for one, hope we never start down that slippery slope.
posted on August 4, 2000 01:24:54 AM new
What freedom will some women gain if the attitudes toward them as sexual commodities and objects who enjoy humiliation and abuse are changed?
Would you honestly protect racial degredation in the same way? Maybe. Not me.
The "you will lose your freedoms" is a JOKE as far as I am concerned. If that was true we lost our freedoms with the loss of the right to own slaves or kill whales or air religious programming on PBS, or pray in school.
(*Deleted due to second thoughts on tipping off the media. Sorry.)
[ edited by jt on Aug 4, 2000 02:14 AM ]
posted on August 4, 2000 05:24:57 AM new
What I don't think has been discussed here, and what IMO is at the root of anti-"porn" ordinances like that of Cambridge, is that although they may say different, the promulgators of the law do not want smut banned because of its purported deleterious effect. (This is where the frying-pan metaphor falls short.)
They believe smut is evil in and of itself, and for that reason they feel fully justified in banning it. This explains why they believe that smut is NOT protected speech; it falls under the classification of a "hate crime". They find it impossible that anyone could view smut as benign, and moot whether it affects people's attitudes toward women.
If you'll notice, virtually all jt's comments are indeed about adult women in smut works, NOT about children - since kidporn is already illegal. The mention of "children" in the law is therefore obfuscatory: how could any legislator in his right mind vote AGAINST a law "protecting" children?
JT's argument - that if you don't break the law, you have nothing to worry about - is, at least to me, the most offensive part of this whole affair. Whether I do, or would, or might break a law is immaterial to its validity. Whether the law is JUST is at the heart of the issue. Anti-sodomy laws are a case in point. The argument was always "well, YOU don't do that sort of thing, right? So you'd never be arrested. So who cares if it's on the books?"
Problem is, the law DOES sit there on the books, ready to be used as a club against a minority if and when the majority feels like indulging in a little completely legal oppression. It is also the perfect setup for blackmail and extortion by everyone from your next-door neighbor to the police department.
So, once again, the issue IMO is NOT whether porn is "good" or "bad", "constructive" or "destructive". The issue is whether this sort of law, no matter how noble its intent (although I seriously question the intent of the people who wrote it and voted it in), is indeed constitutional. I cannot picture anybody successfully arguing that it is.
posted on August 4, 2000 09:22:12 AM new
JT - I never said that I would protect racial degradation, and I take offense to your word "maybe" after that particular sentence. You don't know me well enough to make a judgment of that type and to imply that I endorse racial degradation is, IMO, hate speech in and of itself.
I won't even address the other statements you made, however, losing the "freedom" to pray in schools is an oxymoron. Being forced to pray in school was not a freedom, as one was not given a choice. Having that choice instituted, (praying silently has always been available), gave us a freedom rather than taking one away.
People who think the loss of our freedoms is a joke frighten me as they seem to believe the world should conform to their beliefs, with no room for diversification. History tends to go in cycles, those who would take rights from others may eventually have someone else's beliefs forced upon them.
If you equate the right to own slaves with losing the right to mandatory prayer in school and see these as freedoms that were taken from you, I see no reason to continue this discussion.
posted on August 4, 2000 09:34:30 AM new
Jt, I used those remarks is becuase people generally see porn like that....sex crazed people giving sex to each other. And call them what you will, those these are the most used terms period.
Plus, let's not forget that people who are "morally sound" uses these terms in one form or another.
And it seems to me you never read my post fully jt; you only picked that comment and talked about it. What about the rest of my post?
:\\\"Crystalline Sliver cannot be the target of spells or abilities.
posted on August 4, 2000 10:00:19 AM new
I don't know if pornography debases society, but in my opinion, the Democrats, liberals, activist whackos, and the ACLU do.
posted on August 4, 2000 12:00:50 PM new
Teri,
If you *really* want the answers to your questions, then maybe you should do some heavy duty reading.. There's a book by Nadine Strossen called Defending Pornography : Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women's Rights.
Perhaps picking up that book and reading it would give you another viewpoint concerning laws.. and perhaps they would answer your questions and concerns about womens rights and the rights of the women of the future.
posted on August 4, 2000 08:07:37 PM new
Teri,
Your deleted post:
Prayer in school issue: Pearl High School, Pearl Mississippi just agreed, no opposition,(teachers, school board, students, community) that there WILL BE formal school lead prayer in THEIR public school. There always has been actually...but now it is official and school board approved.
How exactly will that be dealt with? What will happen when someone comes into that school system who doesn't have the same faith as those others in the school?
I can foresee the taxpayers money going down the drain on this one, once someone brings suit against the school district and the school board. As a taxpayer *fortunately NOT in MS or that district* it upsets me to see MY money being wasted on such things. And believe me, it is being wasted, because it's MY money that helps fund the Supreme Court, where other such cases have ended up.
How prayer in school ties in with pornography, I'll never know.
But what I do know this that if you *and others* are so concerned with what pornography is doing to you and/or your children, then for gosh sake, TEACH YOUR CHILDREN!
Concerned about rape/violence either through a trusted friend.. spouse.. ex-spouse.. B/F? Then teach your children common sense! Teach them to have self-respect, teach them how to spot the warning signs of people who wish to abuse them.. and teach them to walk away from such people. But do not use other people's legal freedoms as a crutch.
Common sense, self-respect and the knowledge to spot trouble situations (and know what to do in them) will go further and do more good than any legislation ever will. Your children will know and understand what it means to be a woman and how to NOT be helpless and at the mercy of any "person" who wants to hurt/abuse/threaten/mistreat/etc them.
These teachings will empower your children and give them the tools to lead a productive, responsible, and a safe life.
Respectfully submitted to all those who are on a crusade..as all crusades need and should start at home.
posted on August 4, 2000 08:24:45 PM newThis is a misquote. What I said was if it was HARMLESS there is nothing to worry about.
You're splitting some very, very babyfine hairs here, kiddo. You break the law, in this case, by causing "harm" - but WHO defines what "harm" is? And how much of that "harm" is harmful? If it's Dworkin and her ilk sitting in judgment, count me out on the next bus.
But then you're making my point again for me. Legislation like this is a particularly insidious form of harrassment. It's moot whether anybody accused of these charges ever gets brought to trial (although frankly I'd welcome it, as these outrageous laws would be struck down in a heartbeat on appeal). The intent of these laws is to scare the bejeezus out of anybody who does not conform to what the Dworkin gang believes is acceptable sexual activity - to keep 'em looking over their shoulder - dare I say, in the closet? That, folks, is true obscenity.
posted on August 5, 2000 07:27:51 AM new
Teri,
In a way your're right, and in a way you're wrong.
Uncle Sam DOES teach our children. How? Through our elected officials, these officals have the power to strike down laws, to enact laws. These officials have the power to keep the Consititution entact. They have the power to appoint people to help keep the Constitution entact.
So, where are you wrong in your previous statement? It's the "who defines what 'Harm' is?". We do! You, I, and every other voting adult in the U.S. So it's more than obvious that Americans have defined what harm is.. not the courts.
posted on August 5, 2000 09:04:56 AM new
I see your point Rosie but in the event of an "off-shore oil rig accident" for instance it would be the court that would decide that particular case. Right?
As to work place safety/liability issues (coersion for instance) the court would ultimately decide. Same in a case of rape, sex discrimination, abuse. A court decides an individual case and that is how these ordinances work. It is just like an individual suing a gun manufacturer for liability. They can sue the producer and the seller of the materials if the court believes that harm was done.
I am not saying how anything should or should not be...I am saying (in this post) that that is how THESE ordinances are set up to work.
T
posted on August 5, 2000 10:00:55 AM new
So anyway..I was in the shower and I was thinking (pretty kinky huh?) and I wanted to come back and say...
These ordinances do not define that pornography is right or wrong. They do not say it is illegal or try to prevent the production nor the sell. They are NOT moral ordinances. They are legal definitions which ALLOW individuals to bring suit based on claim of harm.
You see the problem was...how can you sue someone for damages if you can't define the gun or the automobile or the oil rig, whatever. You can't hold up in court if people are arguing that I think a pea shooter is a gun and others argue NO ONLY a cannon is a gun. You have to look AT a gun and clearly define what it IS already...not what you think it should or should not be.
So what they did was to define pornography as to what it ALREADY was as an industry. They researched what was ALREADY in production and how women were portrayed and simply wrote it down. By doing that, by having a clear definition of what it WAS already, then you have a valid defined "object" that you can claim in a court of law that it caused you harm.
Here is the legal definition based on the studies that defines what ALREADY existed:
Pornography is the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures and/or words that also includes one or more of the following: (i) women are presented dehumanized as sexual objects, things or
commodities; or (ii) women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy pain or humiliation; or (iii) women are presented as sexual objects who experience sexual pleasure in being raped; or (iv) women are presented as
sexual objects tied up or cut up or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt; or (v)women are presented in postures or positions of sexual submission, servility,or display; or (vi)women's body parts----including but not limited to vaginas, breasts, or buttocks----are exhibited such that women are reduced to those parts; or (vii) women are
presented as whores by nature; or (viii) women are presented being penetrated by objects or animals; or (ix) woman are presented in scenarios of degradation, injury, torture, shown as filthy or inferior, bleeding, bruised, or hurt in a context that makes these conditions sexual.
(Sorry if this is graphic. It is a LEGAL definition.)
AND according to CS, who claims to know much more about content than I, ALL women in pornography ARE portrayed as such. Correct CS?
So if you don't mind seeing women defined this way, then you don't have a problem with pornography. But if this portrayal of women as socially acceptable and a billion dollar industry bothers you...then perhaps you should rethink your position.
I am not trying to argue here that pornography should or should not exist (though of course I have my own opinion). I am only trying to educate people that it HAS been LEGALLY defined by what it ALREADY contained and this is what it IS. (It had nothing to do with the opinion NOR sexuality of the people who defined it. Someone who hates guns can still look at a gun in it's mechanics and define WHAT it ALREADY is.) In it's definition, there has to be a removal of emotions over whether you approve or disappove and there has to be an removal of the sexual emotions it evokes. Pornography is NOT what it DOES to you. It is what it CONTAINS...and that is how it was defined, by content alone.
Now, by it's legal definition, you can look at what it IS and then YOU decide if you approve or you do not. Easy enough.
T
Edited to add, if it does NOT contain one or more of the things specified (see bold), then it is NOT pornography.
Edited also for messiness.
[ edited by jt on Aug 5, 2000 10:09 AM ]
posted on August 5, 2000 01:12:02 PM new
But it IS a moral judgment.
Among other things, the law itself defines BDSM as "harmful," even when the parties involved are willing participants, simply because, in the eye of the writers of this law, BDSM is inherently degrading. Talk to some bottoms and see if they feel demeaned or coerced, degraded or humiliated.
Actually, it even defines a picture of a woman using a dildo as "harmful". Sorry to get so graphic, but a penis, or a finger, or a fist are all "objects" too until "object" is more clearly defined.
As I see it, the only sex pix that are not "pornographic" according to this law are pictures of couples smiling and smooching each other very, very gently, with no signs of penetration by any "object". To make it clear that the woman is free to get up and walk away at any moment, she had better not be portrayed as being held in any manner and probably should be, well, on top.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Aug 5, 2000 01:25 PM ]
posted on August 5, 2000 01:22:19 PM new
Okay, my turn...
First off:
[i]AND according to CS, who claims to know much more about content than I, ALL women in pornography ARE portrayed as such. Correct CS?
So if you don't mind seeing women defined this way, then you don't have a problem with pornography. But if this portrayal of women as socially acceptable and a billion dollar industry bothers you...then perhaps you should rethink your position. [/i]
Re-read my post, and my past posts (plus the AW article on "Love on eBay" or such, I forgot the name) that I NEVER disliked porn. One of my relatives has a thriving business, SHE has broken the mold so to speak, and many Porn stars have had sucess out of the typical roles that soceity places on women.
I clearly stated in my past posts that the Porn Industry took a few cues from HOLLYWOOD. Hollywood in their infinite wisdom has made many "errors" (including the portrayal of women as sex objects and the victim, and literature and other forms of media are also guilty of this BTW) myths seem to be the norm. I could mention many, but a few examples:
Vampires. Hollywood Myth "added" crosses, holy water, wooden stakes, and other vampire tools to the myth of Vampires weaknesses. (And yes, the book Dracula pre-dates this and mentions crosses and stakes, but that's another story).
WRONG!! Go back to the Baltic/Slavic lore, and Silver, Garlic, and a host of other "remedies" (one is you have to tie down a vampire to a stone gracestone with wild rose vines on a full moon) will stop Vampires Cold. No mention of Holy Water or Stakes in this lore...
This type of misconception went on unchecked till the release of Blade and John Carpenter's Vampires in 1998 dispelled the myths and truely stuck to the original facts.
In fact, much of Mythology and lore has been skewed in one form or another. Try cross-checking a few and see what I mean.
Comic Books. Oh good lord, where do I begin?
Superman. In the Comics, Pa Kent NEVER died, yet he suffers a heart attack. Also, Clark played football, not being a towel boy.
Batman. Jezum Crow, errors galore.
The Riddler was a game maker, not a tech inventor.
Barbara Gordon (aka Batgirl) was the daughter of the Police Commisioner, not the niece of Alfred.
And the list goes on.....
It seems to me jt your also doing what society has done for the past 2000+ yrs; taking the bad and ignoring the rest.
Society has evolved so much, we only take the bad and glorify it, while dumoping the rest, wheter it's relavent or not.
True, what you see in porn are women being exploited. But, did you know these same women also own Porn Shops, Studios and Websites, not to mention earn equal or greater than their male counterparts?
Exploitation? HA, in some cases, it's the MALES who are exploited. Why not give a little tear to them?
I'm done ranting, gotta go to lunch.
:\\\"Crystalline Sliver cannot be the target of spells or abilities.
posted on August 5, 2000 01:36:59 PM new
Here is yet another "legal" definition of pornography, with a bit more credibility than those ordinances/studies to which you refer.
"Pornographic material "must be limited to works which, taken as a whole, appeal to the purient interest in sex, which portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and which...do not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973)
It must be remembered that offensive material alone does not constitute pornography. All three criterion have to be fulfilled for a work to be considered pornographic."
By the way, perhaps in your research you found that the ordinances with which you began this discussion have already been struck down in an Indiana Court, meaning that particular Court did not accept this particular definition of pornography as "legal".
posted on August 5, 2000 02:02:03 PM new
While we are on the subject, let's look at the philosophical ideals of one of the people who framed those laws. If you accept Dworkin as an authority, as you have indicated since these ordinances are based on her philosophy, you must have studied her writings as a whole.
"The leaders of the feminist anti-pornography movement regarded men as sexually vicious. In 1979, Andrea Dworkin published the book that became the movement's bible, Pornography: Men Possessing Women. Dworkin
described herself as a victim of sexual abuse In Pornography, she argued that the sexual abuse of women is not the exception but the rule: the "male-supremacist ideology" requires men to hurt women.
Even consensual "sex," as men defined it, was an abuse. "Sex, a word potentially so inclusive and evocative, is whittled down by the male so that, in fact, it means penile intromission," Dworkin wrote. Consequently, "sex" is not an act of love but an affirmation of male supremacy: In practice, ******* is an act of possession--simultaneously an
act of ownership, taking, force; it is conquering; it expresses in intimacy power over and against, body to body, person to thing.
Consequently, there is little to distinguish consensual sex from rape. "Romance...is rape embellished with meaningful looks," Dworkin observed in 1992. Dworkin opposed "pornography" because she believed that it
reinforced the male supremacist ideology and thus contributed to sexual abuse."
[ edited by jada on Aug 5, 2000 02:03 PM ]
posted on August 5, 2000 03:14:24 PM new
Teri,
Let's examine your examples and I'll even throw in one of my own:
Alcohol: This is a mind altering chemical. It alters the your ability to react quickly in circumstances, impairs judgement, etc. They've passed a law that says if someone (either at a bar, a party, etc) serves or sells alcohol and in doing so, it results in a DUI accident, etc, the person who served/sold/etc the alcohol can also be sued. Now, is this a fair and just law? Yes! Why? Because the effects of alcohol on the body are well known.. and alcohol is consumed for this very reason. The server/seller/etc has a legal responsibility to make sure that someone is not consuming this product, who is already impared. BUT this law does not carry over to if the alcohol is purchased and, at a later date consumed at one owns home.. and then the responsibility is solely that of the person who consumed it. The original seller is not responsible.
Guns: There has not been a successful lawsuit against a gun manufacturer. The problem with your logic is that an item must be hazardous when used for the purpose that it was intended. No gun manufacturer creates a gun to be used in a drive by shooting. An equal analogy would be the OK City bombing (not to open old wounds here). Fertilizer and deisel fuel were combined in ways never intended by the companies that produced them. Great harm came from this combination but it was held, in a court of law, that it was the person using these items, in a way not intended by the producers, who was responsible for the harm.
Any heavy object can become an instrument of death, look at your car. The world is a dangerous place and the human mind seems to have found no limit in dreaming up ways to maime or injure other humans.
I'm somewhat unclear about the oil rig analogy that you're trying to draw. If you mean, judges are not able to be influenced by the people, you are saddly mistaken. Judges are elected or appointed by elected officals. So you see, even in the event of an enviromental disaster, the voter still weighs in either directly or indirectly.
Using your analogies, than the following can apply:
If a murderer, kills someone in my family, and I find out later that he was a regular reader of the bible, then I can sue the publisher, distributers, and sellers and those who gave him access to those materials (ie: churches, preachers, priets, etc).
Bonny Joe Maxwell, who killed 11 people to get souls for Satan, the news paper reported, was raised in a very Christian family. ... The Yorkshire Raper "was on a divine mission and felt he had been chosen to hear the word of GOD (JESUS)." ... He murdered 11 girls. ... He was not involved with pornographic material.
I kid you not. If one thing can be used as an excuse *pornography* and sellers and distributers can be sued for it........... Then the same thing can be turned around for something as innocuous as the Bible.
posted on August 5, 2000 04:02:06 PM new
"did you know these same women also own Porn Shops, Studios and Websites, not to mention earn equal or greater than their male counterparts?"
Well I guess that I have never met one of those women. I have met 50 or so that travel circuits and live in hotels. Have met very few of them who did not have children with them. 99.9% of the time those kids stayed alone at night in hotel rooms and in the dark in those same hotel rooms during the day being quite while their mother (and generally a boyfriend(?)husband slept. I have rocked the little one in a hotel lobby at 1 am while they waited on their mother to come back. I know they don't go to school and they are not "hotel schooled"...or maybe they are. I have seen them run when I called DHS.
I have known lots of young women locally (that I went to school with) that took jobs in porn clubs at $2.01 an hour plus tips. The better they are at humiliating themselves the better the tips. I have seen them sleep in cars because they can't get a regular job after that because they have nothing else to put on their application and no one will hire them. They generally go back to the business. One actually worked at a porn club to put herself through nursing school then quit. GOOD for her!
I have known one who tried to get out at 40 years old because there were no tips any longer and it was just $2.01 an hour. She got a few other jobs as a waitress and eventually turned to prostitution after sleeping in her car for a month. I sat with her in an empty bar at 9 am once listening to her cry and tell me how she felt. I couldn't think of anything to say to help her that late in the game.
I have listened to one little girl (who lived with her grandmother at the time) tell me how she hated what her mother did and could not understand why her mother ran off and left her to do it. Now she lives with her mother due to her grandparents illness (alzhimers). I was there two weeks ago for a birthday party because this child called to invite my daughter I LIKE this child.) Her mother is not working now. There are 3 other women in the business living with her. One man, all their children for a total of 9 people in a 3 bedroom house. The mother pointed to a matress lying in the yard and said she really needed to bring it in so someone could sleep on it. The dancers are bringing home the food while she keeps all the kids all day. I thought for a moment about ebay and asked her about a computer. She said no, she didn't have one but she had been to the library to search the internet job bank. Didn't find anything requiring her experience. She started working in a club at under age 18. GOOD money!
Guess where I met this child? Private Christan School...when she lived with her grandmother.
I would be interested to actually meet these successful women and get a different view. Maybe my view IS one sided. Do you know them personally?
T
[ edited by jt on Aug 5, 2000 04:14 PM ]
posted on August 5, 2000 05:44:18 PM newjada, thanks so much for publishing some of Dworkin's claptrap. For those of you not in the know, this is the same (fortunately extremely small) crowd that insists that, if you are a "real" lesbian, you CANNOT want anything "in there" because that's imitating het sex, which as we all know is degrading to women and merely an imitation of rape.
This is the same crowd which insists that the only vibrator a lesbian can in good conscience use is one that in no way resembles a man's - um, [i]thing{/i] ("good" lesbians are supposed to shudder after saying that). Which is why there is actually one on the market shaped like a DOLPHIN. (Which, of course, conveniently kills 2 political birds with one stone! I would not be surprised to find a Greenpeace logo on it somewhere. Next time I'm in New Orleans, I'll check.)
We are not allowed to like leather, which of course is "masculine". Butch dykes are "denying their female nature" and "trying to act like their oppressors" [men]. God(dess) forbid any of us should openly admit to liking - um, rough sex, ogling other women, and smut of various forms, and to have no shame at having been sexually involved with men at one time or another! And to go to a strip bar? And watch our sisters being oppressed as they shimmy for our tips? Just line me up and shoot me now, I guess.
I tell you, it's one thing to be called a sicko by hets. It is infuriating to be the victim of legislation put forward by someone not only of your own sex, but in the name of the general good of women. Please, all you straight folks out there, most of us find Dworkin et al. a terrific embarrassment.
posted on August 5, 2000 09:35:15 PM new
I find this particular work of hers to be quite clever. I could care less about her sex life.
On a different note, is this an accurate quote? I got it in an e-mail and I am skeptical. Can't be. Did anyone see this on 60 Minutes? It HAS to be a hoax.
<i>"A cultist is one who has a strong belief in the Bible and the Second Coming of Christ; who frequently attends Bible studies; who has a high level of financial giving to a Christian cause; who home schools for their children; who has accumulated survival foods and has strong belief in the Second Amendment; and who distrusts big government.
Any of these may qualify a person as a cultist but certainly more than one of these would cause us to look at this person as a threat and his family as being in a risk situation that qualifies for government
interference."- Janet Reno, Attny. General of the United States during an Interview on CBS "60 Minutes" on June 26, 1999.</i>
What is Janet Reno's sexual orientation? (Are we required to discuss that?)
posted on August 6, 2000 02:37:31 AM new
JT - You found that particular work, (the one I took the quotes from), of Dworkin's "quite clever"??
Do you understand that she is saying by having relations with your husband, (you do have children), you are engaging in a pornographic act?
How can you ascribe to these tenets and continue in a marriage? You have mentioned that you love your husband and enjoy martial relations, therefore, do you feel now that romance is "rape embellished with meaningful looks"?
By the way, regarding the Janet Reno comment, wouldn't you agree that attitude would be likely to target specific people thereby limiting their freedom to worship as they choose, etc. (by becoming individuals under suspicion)? Or perhaps the thought of losing the freedom to worship as you please, and home-school your children is not of concern to you, just another JOKE perhaps?
You're willing to take away the rights of others, yet you don't want your rights taken away.
Ironic, isn't it.
(HCQ - I didn't know that much about her prior to this discussion, so I appreciate your providing her name and the associated information).
posted on August 6, 2000 07:42:44 AM new
Reno's a dyke, but what does that have to do with her quote on cults? And what does that quote have to do with the issue at hand?
I don't give a damn about Dworkin's sex life. And she shouldn't be poking her nose into MINE, thank you, which is precisely her intent.
